One year after Climategate the greenhouse gas theory, the absolute cornerstone of IPCC ‘science,’ is torn to shreds. In an unprecedented achievement 24 international experts (over 2 volumes) have worked tirelessly to compose the definitive masterpiece of skeptical science.

BOOK LAUNCH WEEK 1: SKY DRAGON SLAYERS’ REVELATION # 1

To mark the book launch the ‘Slayers’ will publish a series of articles to highlight their scandalous findings.

The first revelation comes from Mišo Alkalaj, a mathematician and head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the “J. Stefan” Institute, Slovenia. Alkalaj refutes a fundamental claim made by the IPPC – in which ‘scientists’ have asserted they can distinguish between human-emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) and its naturally occurring equivalent.

The claim is exposed as being without any scientific basis. It is an unsupported concoction of a lone UN insider cynically and fraudulently inserted into the UN literature as if it was accepted science.

HURRY – GET TWO BOOKS FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!

Each week further such telling revelations will be made. But don’t wait weeks to discover what you can read today and risk missing an even bigger opportunity.

For a limited period we are making a special offer – not one volume but two groundbreaking books. Yes, as a special introductory promotion we are making an extraordinary ‘two for one’ holiday season deal. Buy Book One now for just $10.79 and get Book Two free!

*** ‘Sky Dragon Slayers 2’ ***

Make no mistake – readers of Book One will find the second volume as devastating as the first. ‘Sky Dragon Slayers 2’(RRP $8.99).

So hurry, avoid disappointment this winter holiday season and order now by debit/credit card to have both books (value $19.78) for only $10.79. Remember, this is a limited offer and will not last.

You can order the United States version here, or the British version here.

Avail yourself of this historic opportunity to be among the first to own the epic work that finally kills off the greatest science fraud of all time. Share our message and play your part in bringing an end to the most costly science fraud in history!

Defeated Republican has blasted GOP right-wing pundits for denying global warming science. Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.) threw sour grapes at his fellow party members and elevated junk climate scientists to the status of qualified medical doctors. In the wake of his election failure Inglis whined:

“They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they’re experts on climate change.”

Irrepressible Inglis had served six terms in the House but lost to a more conservative republican opponent and blames defeat on his belief in climate science and picking the wrong side in this latest battle. Indeed, global warming skeptics now fill most Republican seats in Congress.

No Consensus on Climate

The bitter ex-Representative is now reduced to pitching the lame ‘most doctors’ analogy suggesting voters must be dumb for voting for climate skeptics. Inglis argues if climatologists were 100 doctors and 98 said the ‘patient’ was sick then it was foolish to listen to the two whose advice was to do nothing (clearly, inferring that 98% of climate experts have diagnosed a ‘sick’ climate).

Sadly, Inglis hasn’t checked the numbers lately. But voters have. They’ve learned that the ‘98% meme is pure myth and doomsaying scientists have been fiddling the figures. The so-called scientific ‘consensus’ is exposed as boiling down to the opinions of only 75 climatologists from over 19,000 of such experts worldwide. While the “evidence” that proves that the sun wasn’t responsible late 20th century warming came from just one expert.

Doctor Analogy is Quackers

Inglis has since repeated his lame ‘doctor’ analogy to become the unexpected darling of climate alarmists. ThinkProgress first ran the story. But even a cursory analysis proves the Inglis analogy doesn’t hold water. Here’s why:

Medical professionals are required to undertake many years of training while most climatologists aren’t even qualified. Indeed, no climate scientist ever passed a basic degree in climatology.

Too many third raters weak in physics and higher math hide themselves in this infant, generalist-filled science; proof of this came from the official Climategate inquiries.

Lord Oxburgh, who chaired the 2010 independent British report into the Climategate scandal found that innumerate, cherry-picking climate scientists hyped up their global warming theory with unsubstantiated “subjective” claims. He officially recommended that skilled statisticians be brought in to hold their hand.

So when we switch the analogy to that of ‘statistician’ rather than ‘doctor’ we see how poorly Inglis has thought this through. Who in their right mind would want one of those charlatans calculating their tax accounts?

But it’s not just the climate doomsayers at CRU who can’t count; alarmists at the Royal Academy were exposed as innumerate, too. They somehow managed to miscalculate the duration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by several orders of magnitude! And so embarrassed was the New Zealand government by the number-crunching calamities of its climate scientists its now abandoned all pretense to possessing a valid climate temperature record. This is so important because the Australian/New Zealand data constitutes the foundation of one quarter of the planet’s climate record.

But let’s get to the real reason why the ‘doctor’ analogy fails:the ‘patient’ isn’t ‘sick’ – not even showing a rising temperature. Professor Phil Jones, head of the world’s pre-eminent climate data handling establishment the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) admits there’s been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures since 1995.

But worse, solar scientists (not to be confused with climate scientists) say soon we may be entering a new ice age. So if Mr. Inglis insists on proffering a medical analogy, the facts suggest he’d be better advised to refer to those discredited climatologists as quacks and the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as snake oil peddlers.

The embittered former Representative hasn’t kept up with the science. Otherwise he’d know that the laws of physics ably defeat the global warming theory. What Mr. Inglis ought to do is use all that extra free time the voters gave him and take a good hard look again at the science. Then he’ll learn: “it’s the sun stupid!”

Republican mid-term election joy deals financial uncertainty among green investors as the Chicago Climate Exchange announces the end of U.S. carbon trading.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on October 21, 2010 that it will cease carbon trading this year. However, Steve Milloy reporting on Pajamasmedia.com (November 6, 2010) finds this huge story strangely unreported by the mainstream media.

To some key analysts the collapse of the CCX appears to show that international carbon trading is “dying a quiet death.” Yet Milloy finds that such a major business failure has drawn no interest at all from the mainstream media. Milloy noted that a “Nexis search conducted a week after CCX’s announcement revealed no news articles published about its demise.”

Not until November 02, 2010 had the story even been picked up briefly and that was by Chicagobusiness.com (Crain’s). Reporter, Paul Merrion appeared to find some comfort that while CCX will cease all trading of new emission allowances at the end of the year, “it will continue trading carbon offsets generated by projects that consume greenhouse gases, such as planting trees.”

Collapse is Personal Setback for U.S. President

Barack Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funded the fledgling CCX. Professor Richard Sandor, of Northwestern University had started the business with $1.1 million in grants from the Chicago-based left-wing Joyce Foundation enthusiastically endorsed by Obama. When founded in November 2000, CCX’s carbon trading market was predicted to grow anywhere between $500 billion and $10 trillion. Fortunately before its collapse Sandor was able to net $98.5 million for his 16.5% stake when CCX was sold.

Top international experts prove British numbers on carbon dioxide are wrong. Royal Society blunder grossly exaggerates climate impact.

German chemist, Dr Klaus Kaiser has published evidence that proves the Royal Society (RS), London, has been caught out making schoolboy errors in mathematical calculations over the duration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere. Backed up by a review by a leading Swedish mathematics professor the revelation is a serious embarrassment to the credibility of the once revered British science institute and a major setback for its claims about climate change.

A gaffe in their own basic calculations led the RS to falsely find that CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years rather than a dozen or so as per peer-reviewed studies show. Global warming skeptics have been quick to condemn the error and demand an apology and immediate correction.

The Royal Society advises the British government on matters concerning climate change. Due to the scale of the error any forthcoming review will necessarily result in a substantial downward revision of the threat posed by CO2 in the official government numbers.

Royal Society Members Rebel Against Climate Stance

In an article published on Canada Free Press (CFP: October 13, 2010) Dr Kaiser explains how he picked up on the fault after a recent climate skeptic “rebellion” by senior members of the world’s oldest scientific institute forced the RS to revise their guide “Climate change: a summary of the science”(30 September 2010). Of great concern to Dr Kaiser was one offending paragraph under the heading The Carbon Cycle and Climate where the RS says:

“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations” [emphasis added].

Dr Kaiser’s article poses some very embarrassing questions about the competence of authors of the Royal Society document. The German chemist expertly dismantles the claims by the Royal Society that it would take “millennia” for atmospheric CO2 to return to preindustrial levels. Such a claim, he says, “cannot be true.”

Editor: I hope they don’t plan on going on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader!

Read the rest of the article at the source: Suite 101. There is a link to the right to John O’Sullivan’s website.

Rate this:

Comments Off on Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error by: John O’Sullivan

The controversy over ‘Satellitegate’ hots up as NOAA faces a court appearance for refusing to release evidence that would show whether one or more US satellites exagerrated global warming temperatures.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal agency focused on reporting the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere. When the story first broke NOAA bizarrely announced it would withdraw satellite ‘images’ from its archives but failed to state whether reams of cooked data had also been withdrawn.

An official US Government statement last July confirmed that the NOAA-16 earth orbiting satellite used to measure surface temperatures suffered failure due to a “degraded” sensor system. But skeptics now fear that because government climate scientists won’t answer any more questions or reveal the discredited data archives they may be guilty of fraudulently cooking the books to show super boiling temperatures.

The story broke after an anonymous member of the public contacted a skeptic blog when he stumbled across thousands of alarming readings on a government website. The website showed thousands of surface temperatures of over 400 degrees fahrenheit. Dubbed Satellitegate the shocking revelations proved that all such bogus data had been fed automatically into data banks that the US Government then sold all over the world.

As proprietary temperature data products the junk numbers were used by domestic and international weather and climate researchers. Fears are growing that the junk data may have contaminated scores of climate models worldwide and artificially increased average global warming records by several degrees.

In the three months since the story hit the news NOAA still hasn’t come clean as to the true extent of the data contamination. Now it may be necessary for lawyers to file an official Freedom of Information request (FOIA) to compel the government, under federal legislation, to stop the cover up and reveal the truth.

US Government Has History of Breaking Law over Satellite Failures

This won’t the first time NOAA has cynically broken the law to hide embarrasing satellite problems. In 2008 desmogblog.com became embroiled in a similar FOIA confrontation- see ‘NOAA Stonewalls on DCSOVR Documents.’ It is believed that the DCSOVR satellite costing over $100 million may be cannabalised to destroy incriminating evidence that NOAA and NASA were conspiring to prevent the launch of that satellite because it would prove the numbers from other such sources were fake.

As desmogblog.com reports, “DSCOVR is designed to view the planet from the unique vantage point of one million miles distant, and according to leading researchers would immediately settle any remaining debate on the origins or seriousness of global warming.”

Degraded Climate Data Knowingly Sold for Over Five Years

Among the questions NOAA still hasn’t answered are: (1.) how long did NOAA knowingly sell to its network of international customers (mostly government weather and climate researchers) ‘degraded’ data and, (2.) why was no action taken until the story caused a public outcry five years after prominent climate researchers first made the faults known?

Sadly, some commentators on this issue omit to consider that it is common practice in corruption cases for conspirators to shroud their malevolence in the cloak of incompetence. To be fair to the commentator in question he has since publicly conceded, “But, I don’t know the full story.”

How the Law Addresses Corruption

Too often, those with little or no legal experience fail to address whether the alleged perpetrators have the means, motive and opportunity to engage in such conspiratorial acts. Willful ignorance of the facts and/or the law are recurrent themes in government corruption cases on which I’ve worked in both the UK and New York.

Courts must look for the mens rea (guilty mind) component of the wrongful act in conjunction with the actus reus (the rotten deed itself) otherwise, quite rightly, they will never convict.

Lawyers defending the indefensible will often resort to that hoary old chestnut of applying the “merely negligent” gambit to get government workers off serious charges. I have heard endlessly over the years from defense attorneys that we should “never presume malice where simple incompetence will do.” To the raw, untrained eye it often works.

Indeed, there is no prerequisite to doubt such an affirmative defense when there is the absence of any pattern of “error” because it is that pattern of repeated errors that leads to the guilty. What becomes apparent in good fraud cases is that the evidence always displays a pattern- a predictable sequence- of “errors” that go way beyond mere chance.

The Question that NOAA Still Won’t Answer

What makes the Satellitegate controversy so intriguing are three simple questions:

Why do the thousands of high temperature “errors” favor the alarmist (thus government) case?

2. Why were such “errors” only acknowledged by the US government when the story became big news?

Invariably, apologists for science fraud often refer to systemic “errors” as nothing more serious than simple laboratory “selection bias” – and it sure is! Those involved only see what suits them. However, as we have seen in correspondingly substantial frauds (e.g. multi-billion dollar Madoff scandal and sub-prime mortgages) such “error” bias profits the individual or the organisation that crunched the numbers.

When that link between conscious act and subsequent gain becomes clear then it constitutes criminal fraud. Often when such cases are proved you’ll hear those same sanctimonious words uttered by apologists, “lessons will be learned” and they sure are – particularly lessons as to how best to mitigate being caught in the future!

How Self-preservation instinct leads to Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

As I have seen in courtrooms, many middle ranking officers, those loyal lieutenants, often rally behind the misdeeds of their superiors because they are clearly motivated by misplaced self-preservation in a process of ‘CYA.’ You “cover your ass” and concomitantly, by such a survival strategy you also cover the behinds of colleagues by wagon circling as a group. You know full well that your undoubted strength in numbers increases your own personal chances of avoiding censure/prosecution.

So how do anti-corruption specialists prove malfeasance/fraud under the civil burden of “the preponderance of the evidence?” Well, ultimately we need to demonstrate a good probability that X , Y or Z are unlikely to be merely incompetent time after time when their repeated errors favor only one outcome as opposed to a random one. When it becomes statistically improbable that such “errors” could be down to chance alone, that’s when a jury convicts.

What those without legal training also often fail to grasp are two key concepts that courts must address that may be fatal for those implicated parties:

Omission-conscious failure to positively remedy a known error is malfeasance and may thus constitute conspiracy to commit fraud;

Loss or destruction of evidence by any party subject to an FOIA constitutes evidence abuse which is dealt with by the spoliation doctrine (i.e. the offending party is sanctioned under law because the law states that a party shall be punished when it ought to anticipate legal proceedings-thus securing conviction by default judgment).[1.]

The worst evidence of hyper-inflated global warming data that I found was on a web page entitled, ‘Michigan State University Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services.’ When I contacted NOAA for further information I was denied by their lawyers. Is this necessary if we are talking about a non-problem over trivial errors of data no one uses? Does that smell of negligence or more of fraud? Taxpayers have a right to know what evidence has now become conveniently “lost” or destroyed.

NOAA and MSU have effectively blocked further access to all associated data preventing my associates and me from analyzing it to identify if there is any case to answer. We merely want NOAA to address the following:

Since removing ‘images’ from their archives has NOAA or its Sea Watch partners taken steps to also remove infected ‘data’ from their archives?
When did NOAA/Sea Watch Partners first know of this problem?
Has NOAA and/or Sea Watch partners ascertained the scope and extent of this data error and what action (i) has been (ii) will be taken to avoid any further recurrence?
Has NOAA/Sea Watch partners identified whether satellite data temperature anomalies impact other data sets and findings including global climate models?
Why has NOAA sinisterly removed all entries for the NOAA-16 subsystem log about the satellite’s health and performance from 2005 onwards when such entries were cleared displayed online up to the date of my first ‘Satellitegate’ article?
Were there errors also made in the NOAA-16 subsystem log that is a totally unconnected process to that of the degraded sensor.
Will NOAA preserve/provide my investigators and me with the details of all the aforementioned data no longer displayed online, plus all associated data that may be relevant to investigations into the ‘Satellitegate’ controversy?
Does NOAA continue to feed automated ‘degraded’ satellite data into its proprietary products that are bought by weather and climate researchers around the world?
Why has NOAA not given any official notifications to (i) it’s paying customers and (ii) the public via its website/publications of the NOAA-16 faults despite Drs. Roy Spencer and John Curry making it known since 2005 that data was no longer reliable?

What Are the Public Left to Think Now?

As any competent government corruption attorney will tell you, repeated errors constitute malfeasance when a continuous and unrelenting omission to address a known sequence of data ‘degradations’ can be judged to be nothing short of a conscious and willful act.

Moreover, when there is also the intentional failure to divulge the evidence that would prove conscious intent not to correct a fault in your favor then that is also proof of fraud. Thus, a group of those who knew of the errors and collectively and consciously failed to act are as guilty of conspiracy to defraud as those who perpretrated the original wrong. Bankers have been jailed for less, why aren’t climate scientists?

Shock: Top British Scientists force Royal Society into Climate Change U-Turn By: John O’Sullivan

Britain’s Royal Society issue astonishing climate change climb down and disowns scientists who have made predictions about heat waves and rising sea levels.

On September 30, 2010 The Royal Society (RS) published its humiliating climb down under the header ‘Climate change: a summary of the science.’ The sudden move appears to be a desperate attempt to pre-empt a possible rebellion among the ranks of the world’s oldest and most prestigious science institute.

In a new document that replaces the institution’s former official guide, ‘Climate change controversies, a simple guide,’ the RS now officially concedes, “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”.

Leading Experts Have ‘Little Confidence’ in Global Warming Numbers

Professor Anthony Kelly and Sir Alan Rudge, senior members of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, led the victory for climate common sense. They spoke for 43 angry fellows who signed a petition sent to the society’s president, Lord Rees. Rees, who has long been accused by climate skeptics as a key global warming scaremonger now grudgingly admits, “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”

Admissions that ‘Uncertainty’ Levels have increased

The new guide retreats from all such former hyperbole to admit: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.” This more sober statement distances itself from the British government’s melodramatic climate claims while also refraining from offer specific advice to governments on climate related issues.
The story is reported both in the London Times and on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s(IPCC) official news site.

Strident Skeptics Assail High Moral Ground

Piers Corbyn, successful long-range weather and climate forecaster at WeatherAction.com, was quick to react to the announcement:

“Rather than trying again to continue the cover-up of failed science and data fraud the Royal Society should support our call – from ‘Climate-Sense’ scientists -for an open, honest evidence-based public debate on CO2 climate change involving scientists and economists from all sides.”

Corbyn, a fully qualified British astrophysicist, accurately predicted the Russian and Pakistan severe weather events in their long-range forecasts based in solar activity. The solar expert next month chairs a meeting of notable independent British global skeptics and writers planning the November launch of a major new book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ which they claim marks a new phase in the campaign against climate fraud. Billed as the world’s first full-volume debunk of the theory underpinning the global warming hype, the books seven international authors claim, among other things, they have proof NASA and other government climatologists used fake calculations to exaggerate the warming effect of carbon dioxide by a factor of three.

Slap in the Face to New Pro-green UK Government

Professor John Pethica, the Royal Society’s vice-president and lead author of the RS document affirms the consequences caused by the controversy,

“It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.”
The Society’s retreat from the staunch belief that so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ have any significant impact on global temperatures continues, “There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”

Undeterred by the apparent retreat in the science, Britain’s Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, made his pitch that the UK government wanted to foster a “third industrial revolution” in low-carbon technology with policies based on cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases.’

Solar scientists, not to be confused with climate scientists, study the most important heat engine driving our planet’s temperatures-the sun.

Matthew Penn and William Livingston, solar astronomers with the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, have been following a marked decrease in sunspot activity recently. Reputable studies link a prolonged drop in sunspot activity to a cooling epoch or even a potential new ice age as more sunspots correlate with more global warming, while fewer sunspots are proven to match episodes of long-term cooling.